Importance of Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice and Fairness in Workplace

Employees are an important asset to any organization. Their dedication, hard work and commitment play a vital part in the success of an organization. If employees are expected to give their best at work and be efficient at the optimum level, then they need to be treated fairly, equally and with respect. The main objective of this research is to study and understand Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice and Fairness at workplace and to study its impact on the efficiency of the employees. Distributive and Procedural Justice have an impact in all kinds of institutions, such as hospitals, educational institutions, factories etc. This study aims to cover all these areas under a single term of “workplace” which applies to all kind of institutions, organizations, corporations, etc. Analytical Research Design has been employed to carry out research in the present study with the help of secondary data. To understand Distributive Justice thoroughly, the researcher has explained different approaches to distributive justice, such as John Rawl’s Theory, Utilitarianism, Egalitarianism and Libertarianism. The four important pillars on which Procedural Justice is based are discussed in this study. The thin line that distinguishes distributive justice from procedural justice has been included in this research. The present study explains the importance of Fair treatment in the workplace and the behavioral attitude of employees towards unfair treatment. The difference between equity and equality in a workplace has been explained in the present study. The implication of distributive justice, procedural justice and fair treatment of employees at workplace has also been discussed by the researcher.

Creativity in the South Korean Workplace: Procedural Justice, Abusive Supervision, and Competence

Innovation is now a feature of daily life. In a rapidly changing market environment and amid fierce competition, organizations pursue survival and growth through innovation, and the key driver of innovation is the creativity of employees. Because the value of creativity has been emphasized, many organizations are looking for effective ways to encourage employees to be creative at work. From a resource perspective, creativity at work can be viewed as a high-intensity job demand, and organizations should encourage it by providing and managing employee resources. This study is an attempt to empirically investigate how competence and abusive supervision affect the relationship between procedural justice and creativity from the conservation of resources perspective. Findings from two-wave time-lagged survey data from 377 South Korean employees indicate that procedural justice increases creativity through the mediation of competence. Furthermore, abusive supervision has a negative moderating effect on the relationship between procedural justice and competence. The findings show that competence moderates the relationship between procedural justice and creativity and that the lower the level of abusive supervision, the greater the effect of procedural justice on competence and creativity.

Factors Influencing Public Trust in the Police in South Korea: Focus on Instrumental, Expressive, and Normative Models

Abundant studies examining public trust in the police have applied several theoretical models including instrumental, expressive, or normative models. However, few studies have attempted to simultaneously assess the empirical validity of these theoretical models of public trust in the police. In addition, there has been little research on public trust in police in East Asia; most of the empirical research on this topic has been explored in Western societies. To extend the knowledge of public trust in the police, the current study investigated to what extent factors drawn from three models influence public trust in the police using a sample of South Korean citizens. The results show that, consistent with prior research, police effectiveness, procedural justice, and social cohesion had significant, positive effects on public trust in the police. Police effectiveness was the most influential factor followed by procedural justice and social cohesion. Implications for practice and future research are discussed.

THE IDEA OF PROCEDURAL JUSTICE BEFORE THE PENSION AUTHORITY

The concept of justice, crystallizing over the centuries, is very important in creation of material law and shaping the procedures necessary for their implementation. The importance of ideas and principles of procedural justice for social insurance is essential not only because of the demand of law itself. Procedural justice is also important, because it influences the society. Analysis of the procedure before the pension authority on application for pension or retirement through the prism of the constitutional principle of the rule of law, concept of procedural justice and principle procedural due process indicates that justice is indispensable to realize the principle of the democratic rule of law. Robert S. Summers, recognizing other values of the process, taken from social life, sees the necessity to apply them not so much to the procedure as a means to achieve a specific goal, but to the procedure itself. In this context the procedure before the pension authority should be seen through the prism of the error risk, good result of the procedure, procedure evaluation and participatory management.

Is abusive supervision always harmful toward creativity? Managing workplace stressors by promoting distributive and procedural justice

Purpose This paper aims to answer the question of how, why and when abusive supervision affects employee creativity. Drawing on the conservation of resources theory, this paper examines the direct and indirect (via psychological distress) effects of abusive supervision on employee creativity. It further investigates the boundary conditions imposed by employees’ perceived distributive and procedural justice in the relationships between abusive supervision, psychological distress and employee creativity. Design/methodology/approach The study uses multi-sourced and time-lagged data collected in three waves from a survey of employees-supervisor dyads working in the Chinese manufacturing sector. In the first wave, the authors received data from 347 employees on perceived abusive supervision and perceived distributive and procedural justice. In the second wave, 320 employees shared their perceptions of psychological distress at work. In the third wave, the authors received ratings for employee creativity from the direct supervisors of 300 employees. The data were analyzed using bootstrapped moderated mediation procedures. Findings The findings revealed a significant negative influence of abusive supervision on employee creativity both directly and indirectly in the presence of perceived psychological distress. However, distributive and procedural justice was found to mitigate the negative impact of abusive supervision on employee creativity. Practical implications Abusive supervision has adverse consequences for employees’ creativity because it affects their psychological health. HR and top management should prioritize addressing abusive supervision first and foremost to boost employee creativity in the workplace. Managers should give employees opportunities for participation and foster a climate of fairness in the organization to mitigate the harmful consequences of abusive supervision. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first empirical study that examines the psychological distress-based mechanism in the relationship between abusive supervision and creativity while considering the interactive effects of distributive and procedural justice. It addresses an important research gap in the literature by proposing that organizational perceived distributive and procedural justice can mitigate the detrimental effects of abusive supervision.

Legitimacy, trust and legal cynicism: a review of concepts

We review the concepts of legitimacy, trust, and legal cynicism in the context the debate about police legitimacy, discuss the extent to which these concepts relate to each other, and offer some early, speculative thoughts on a how relational model of legitimacy can extend beyond procedural justice concerns. Relying upon procedural justice theory, we emphasise the distinction between police legitimacy and legitimation: popular legitimacy is defined as public beliefs that legal authority has the right to rule (people acknowledge the oral appropriateness of legal authority) and the authority to govern (people recognise legal authority as the rightful authority), whereas legitimation is related to the criteria people use to judge the normative appropriateness of legal agents’ exercise of power (e.g., the extent to which police officers are trustworthy to behave in accordance with people’s normative expectations). Building on studies on legal cynicism and legal socialisation, we consider how other aspects of police conduct can send negative relational messages about people’s value within society and undermine their judgements about the legitimacy of legal authority – messages of oppression, marginalisation, and neglect over the life course. We conclude suggesting avenues for future research on public-police relations.